Sutureless Perceval Aortic Valve Versus Conventional Stented Bioprostheses: Meta-Analysis of Postoperative and Midterm Results in Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement

被引:82
作者
Meco, Massimo [1 ]
Montisci, Andrea [1 ]
Miceli, Antonio [1 ]
Panisi, Paolo [3 ]
Donatelli, Francesco [1 ,2 ]
Cirri, Silvia [1 ]
Ferrarini, Matteo [1 ]
Lio, Antonio [1 ]
Glauber, Mattia [1 ]
机构
[1] Grp Osped San Donato, Ist Clin St Ambrogio, Cardiothorac Dept, Via Faravelli 16, I-20149 Milan, Italy
[2] Univ Milan, Chair Cardiac Surg, Milan, Italy
[3] Humanitas Gavazzeni Hosp, Cardiac Ctr, Bergamo, Italy
来源
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION | 2018年 / 7卷 / 04期
关键词
aortic stenosis; prosthetic heart valve; Sutureless bioprothesis; Perceval valve; CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS; RENAL-FAILURE; RISK-FACTORS; SURGERY; STERNOTOMY; MINITHORACOTOMY; IMPLANTATION; DURATION; DIALYSIS; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1161/JAHA.117.006091
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundAortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses. Methods and ResultsA total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-1.88]; P=0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]; P=0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 [95% CI, 0.56-3.21]; P=0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR: 2.52 [95% CI, 0.60-1.06]; P=0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.161.2 versus 2.13 +/- 2.2; mean difference: 0.99 [95% CI, -1.22 to -0.75]; P=0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR: 2.45 [95% CI, 1.44-4.17]; P=0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42 +/- 1.73 versus 22.8 +/- 1.86; mean difference: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.62-1.18]; P=0.001), even during follow-up (10.98 +/- 5.7 versus 13.06 +/- 6.2; mean difference: -2.08 [95% CI, -3.96 to -0.21]; P=0.030). We found no difference in 1-year mortality. ConclusionsThe Perceval bioprosthesis improves the postoperative course compared with conventional bioprostheses and is an option for high-risk patients.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Heart valve surgery in octogenarians: operative and long-term results [J].
Aoyagi, Shigeaki ;
Fukunaga, Shuji ;
Arinaga, Koichi ;
Tomoeda, Hiroshi ;
Akasu, Koji ;
Ueda, Tomohiro .
HEART AND VESSELS, 2010, 25 (06) :522-528
[2]   Stentless bioprostheses improve postoperative coronary flow more than stented prostheses after valve replacement for aortic stenosis [J].
Bakhtiary, F ;
Schiemann, M ;
Dzemali, O ;
Wittlinger, T ;
Doss, M ;
Ackermann, H ;
Moritz, A ;
Kleine, P .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2006, 131 (04) :883-888
[3]   The coagulopathy of cardiopulmonary bypass [J].
Besser, Martin W. ;
Klein, Andrew A. .
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN CLINICAL LABORATORY SCIENCES, 2010, 47 (5-6) :197-212
[4]   Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Brown, Morgan L. ;
McKellar, Stephen H. ;
Sundt, Thoralf M. ;
Schaff, Hartzell V. .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2009, 137 (03) :670-U215
[5]   Conventional surgery, sutureless valves, and transapical aortic valve replacement: What is the best option for patients with aortic valve stenosis? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis [J].
D'Onofrio, Augusto ;
Rizzoli, Giulio ;
Messina, Antonio ;
Alfieri, Ottavio ;
Lorusso, Roberto ;
Salizzoni, Stefano ;
Glauber, Mattia ;
Di Bartolomeo, Roberto ;
Besola, Laura ;
Rinaldi, Mauro ;
Troise, Giovanni ;
Gerosa, Gino .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2013, 146 (05) :1065-1071
[6]   Aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis versus minimally invasive sternotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis [J].
Dalen, Magnus ;
Biancari, Fausto ;
Rubino, Antonino S. ;
Santarpino, Giuseppe ;
Glaser, Natalie ;
De Praetere, Herbert ;
Kasama, Keiichiro ;
Juvonen, Tatu ;
Deste, Wanda ;
Pollari, Francesco ;
Meuris, Bart ;
Fischlein, Theodor ;
Mignosa, Carmelo ;
Gatti, Giuseppe ;
Pappalardo, Aniello ;
Svenarud, Peter ;
Sartipy, Ulrik .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2016, 49 (01) :220-227
[7]   Permanent pacemaker implantation after isolated aortic valve replacement: Incidence, indications, and predictors [J].
Dawkins, Sam ;
Hobson, Alex R. ;
Kalra, Paul R. ;
Tang, Augustine T. M. ;
Monro, James L. ;
Dawkins, Keith D. .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2008, 85 (01) :108-112
[8]  
Despotis GJ, 1999, J CARDIOTHOR VASC AN, V13, P18
[9]   Systemic inflammation present in patients undergoing CABG without extracorporeal circulation [J].
Fransen, E ;
Maessen, J ;
Dentener, M ;
Senden, N ;
Geskes, G ;
Buurman, W .
CHEST, 1998, 113 (05) :1290-1295
[10]   PROGNOSIS AND RISK-FACTORS IN ACUTE, DIALYSIS-REQUIRING RENAL-FAILURE AFTER OPEN-HEART-SURGERY [J].
FROST, L ;
PEDERSEN, RS ;
LUND, O ;
HANSEN, OK ;
HANSEN, HE .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 1991, 25 (03) :161-166